New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene

Key Points

  • High resolution SST and SSS reconstruction off Cape Hatteras
  • Low salinity anomaly (3.5-5.2 ka): absence of Labrador current influence
  • Millenial NAO pattern and solar variability

Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene

By Pierre Gosselin (reposted from No Tricks Zone with permission)

A new paper titled High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka appearing just recently in the AGU Paleoceanography Journal authored by Caroline Cléroux et al provides further, clear evidence of a major solar impact on climate during the Holocene. Hat/tip: http://kaltesonne.de/.

According to the paper’s abstract, the study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream.

Now if I recall correctly, this was the region that Stefan Rahmstorf deemed not long ago as good enough to be used to represent sea level trend for the whole world.

The above authors focused on the last 10,000 years to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and looked at centennial to millennial time scale variability. To do this, a seabed core was extracted off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina at a water depth of 620 m.

They observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, they reconstructed positive salinity anomalies off Cape Hatteras. For the 5.2–3.5 ka period they demonstrated that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north.

What’s behind the anomalies? They found that variations were in sync with total solar irradiance. The abstract states (emphasis added):

Wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the d18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”

The paper’s introduction has a few sentences that the IPCC really needs to take note of (emphasis added):

The last decade of paleoclimate research has shown that the Holocene is not the stable, climatic event-free period as previously thought: both external and internal (oceanic) forcings have caused major climatic changes. […] On a shorter time scale, observations over about the last 50 years show interannual and decadal climate change. These fluctuations probably persisted throughout the Holocene, together with centennial to millennial variability.”

Dr. Sebastian Lüning writes at the Die kalte Sonne site:

The new findings once again clearly underscore that the last several thousands of years are characterized by natural temperature cycles that are controlled by fluctuations in solar activity (see p. 68-75 in ‘Die kalte Sonne’). The logical continuation of these natural cycles through today shows that an important part of the warming of the last 150 years has to be attributed to the increase in solar activity. It is not a mere coincidence that the last decades have been the most solar active of the last 10,000 years.

The climate models used by the IPCC are not able to reproduce these millennial cycles because they assign only a very small climate impact to the sun. Also the recently introduced new climate model from the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg suffers from the same deficiency, and thus the results of that model are essentially unrealistic.”

In layman’s terms: crap in, crap out.

Once again yet another study that emphatically shows that climate changed in the recent past (while CO2 was stable), and that these changes were in sync with solar activity.

UPDATE: In comments, a graph from the paper is pointed out by Willis Eschenbach, and I have to agree the correlation is poor. He writes:

Can’t say I’m all that impressed by the match between the solar and the ∂18O …

Regarding this, they say:

This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”

Both signals are “in phase over the rest of the studied period”? Not for the last 3,000 years on my planet.  W.

==============================================================

I agree with Willis and Mosher in comments. The claim seems overstated compared to the data. – Anthony

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bart
March 4, 2012 2:25 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 9:16 am
“Here is the power spectrum of TSI during the Holocene:”
Reader beware: Leif knows very little about power spectra and how to estimate them. We had a long tussle over this issue some time ago on another thread. His insight on the matter is inversely proportional to his supreme confidence. The PSD he proffers in the above comment is so poor, it makes me wince in pain.

Editor
March 4, 2012 2:48 pm

Can’t say I’m all that impressed by the match between the solar and the ∂18O …

Regarding this, they say:

This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.”

Both signals are “in phase over the rest of the studied period”? Not for the last 3,000 years on my planet.
w.

Pamela Gray
March 4, 2012 3:02 pm

Alec I don’t have a clue what you are talking about re leftist Aussie etc. Bias and fudge factor research I do know about.

March 4, 2012 5:26 pm

Ya Willis I saw that and cringed.
If that were in a mann paper most of the folks here would be all over it as proving nothing.
The confirmation bias runs strong in the solar wing of the debate as strong if not stronger than the C02 wing
so few people attend to the actual data

Editor
March 4, 2012 5:38 pm

steven mosher says:
March 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Ya Willis I saw that and cringed.
If that were in a mann paper most of the folks here would be all over it as proving nothing.
The confirmation bias runs strong in the solar wing of the debate as strong if not stronger than the C02 wing
so few people attend to the actual data

Thanks, Mosh. I’ve got the gain on my BS detector turned to the max, no matter which side of the aisle the paper claims to support. My problem is … I don’t believe anything.
Well, that’s not actually the problem, the problem is far too often I’m right to not believe anything.
And when the headline says:

Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists – New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene

I am reminded of when my daughter says, “In your dreams, Dad”, and the Urban Legend alarm starts to ring.
Neither alarm proves anything, of course … but they do show which direction to look.
All the best,
w.

u.k.(us)
March 4, 2012 5:44 pm

Steven Mosher says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“With all the publically available data ( Berkeley Earth) and with No adjustment, the answer comes out the same.”
=======================
Ok, and the conclusion is?

March 4, 2012 6:15 pm

Perhaps the reason the Sun has 1,000 year cycles (maybe 934 year cycles) is shown in this inverted plot of the scalar sum of angular momentum of the Sun and 9 planets, which I wrote about early last year. Note that it also shows the superimposed 60 year (59.6 year?) cycles …
http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg
Even though solar activity is currently decreasing, I believe it will increase again around the year 2028 and that we may not reach the maximum of the 1,000 year cycle for another 100 to 200 years, by which time the trend will be 0.5 to 1.0 degrees C higher than at present. This may be deduced from the plot at the foot of the Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com
Of course carbon dioxide will have no additional warming effect because the standing waves which each molecule of carbon dioxide forms have fewer frequencies than those formed by water vapour, and there are only about 4% as many molecules anyway. So the radiative component of thermal energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is not at all significantly affected by carbon dioxide. There will be more on this in my peer-reviewed publication this week.

March 4, 2012 6:18 pm

Sebastian Luning says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:13 am
The “1000″ year cycle (plus/minus 100 years) is indeed a prime solar cycle. Have a look e.g. at Abreu et al. (2010) who termed this solar cycle “Eddy cycle”. So I am not sure why you are so skeptical.
I’m skeptical because of their Figure 3, where the blue curve shows the actual data.

RACookPE1978
Editor
March 4, 2012 6:57 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm (responding to)
Sebastian Luning says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:13 am

I’m skeptical because of their Figure 3, where the blue curve shows the actual data.

This is unclear to me, can you clarify your statement please: Is their “‘blue line” correctly showing the actual data, but their interpretation on Fig 3 (and, perhaps, in the rest of their paper) incorrect (in your judgement)? Or is their “blue line” incorrectly showing actual data that is more correctly found elsewhere?

March 4, 2012 7:22 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm
This is unclear to me, can you clarify your statement please: Is their “‘blue line” correctly showing the actual data, but their interpretation on Fig 3 (and, perhaps, in the rest of their paper) incorrect (in your judgement)?
The blue line is correctly showing their actual correct data.

March 4, 2012 7:28 pm

Bart says:
March 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm
His insight on the matter is inversely proportional to his supreme confidence. The PSD he proffers in the above comment is so poor, it makes me wince in pain.
Your own supreme confidence is misplaced and your pain unnecessary. Your comments on that old thread show how little of reality you have a grip on. Post your own PSD of the data if you wish to recover some respectability.

Bart
March 4, 2012 10:25 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Leif, I strongly urge you to seek out guidance at your local university, probably in the electrical engineering department, to help you understand what a power spectrum is and how it is best estimated. Your transparent lack of formal training in this area is holding you back, and to those who understand what they are looking at… well, let’s just say you aren’t going to make the impression you want to make, and you are going to undermine people’s confidence in the work you are good at.

Editor
March 4, 2012 10:34 pm

Sorry, the link to the Aussie climate censorship madness was from “The Other Pamela Gray.”

March 4, 2012 11:31 pm

Is this (just about) X-flare coming our way?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
Dr. S. Tanks for the data file, it works fine.

March 5, 2012 1:53 am

Alec Rawls and Pamela Gray, sorry for the confusion; my bad. I reposted Other Pamela Gray’s, post and fudged-up the monikers.

A
March 6, 2012 6:09 am

Found a 960-year period some years ago, from data mainly based on polar light data. Certain sunspot data supported it.
It’s the same period here – on the other hand, “a secular cycle” does not make sense to me:
http://books.google.de/books?id=IryMtwHHngIC&pg=PA720&lpg=PA720&dq=960+years+sunspot&source=bl&ots=sxZhcdJmdz&sig=79X-m-vp6dzopz7kMyCSTplOMko&hl=de&sa=X&ei=GhhWT6eVEM7XsgaQ4rjfBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=960%20years%20sunspot&f=false

Resourceguy
March 6, 2012 9:33 am

This research finding and the lack of traction it will generate makes the point that no amount of drilling and analysis of long records in sediments or ice cores will make any dent in the political science of global warming.